2316387 (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa, Subclass 050. The applicant had a history of criminal convictions, including breaches of parole and apprehended violence orders, and had failed to depart Australia as required. The applicant also sought review of a decision not to grant a Subclass 051 (Bridging (Protection Visa Applicant)) visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant would abide by the conditions of a Bridging E visa if one were granted, as required by clause 050.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing the applicant's likely future conduct in light of his past immigration and criminal history. A secondary issue was whether the applicant met the eligibility criteria for a Subclass 051 visa.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, including intensive correction orders and parole breaches, and his failure to comply with previous immigration obligations. While the applicant expressed remorse and a desire to live with his partner, the Tribunal found that his past conduct, including multiple breaches of court orders and immigration laws, indicated a pattern of wilful non-compliance. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Applicant VAAN of 2001 v MIMA* (2002) 70 ALD 289, which require consideration of past breaches, their significance, wilfulness, mitigating circumstances, and contrition. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant did not meet the eligibility requirements for a Subclass 051 visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Bridging E (Class WE) visa and also found that the applicant was not eligible for a Subclass 051 visa.